Search form

Smart Transportation Funding

Governments need money to finance transportation system improvements, but revenues from traditional sources are flat. This is leading to debate over how best to generate new funds. There are many possible options [PDF], some better than others, because in addition to raising revenue, they support other strategic objectives. Politicians will be tempted to choose the easiest funding options. It is up to planners to point out the best options, taking into account all impacts.

Although vehicle travel has peaked in most developed countries, reducing the need for roadway expansion, many roads and transit systems are due for major maintenance and reconstruction, and demand for alternative modes is increasing [PDF]. In response to aging population, rising fuel prices, increased urbanization, increased health and environmental concerns and changing consumer preferences, many communities want to improve their sidewalks, cycling facilities and public transit services. This requires money.

Peaking vehicle travel, increasing fuel efficiency, and the fact that per-gallon fuel taxes do not increase with inflation means that real (inflation-adjusted) tax revenue per vehicle-mile driven is only about half what it was thirty years ago. Gasoline taxes and road tolls now finance only about half of total road spending, the rest is funded through general taxes. As a result, some experts to claim that the transport finance system is “broken” and must be replaced.

This has lead to various new transport funding proposals. Theoretically, the best involves charging road user fees that vary by time and location, which can internalize and therefore reduce costs such as congestion and pollution emissions. Recent studies demonstrate that the technology works. However, this approach requires installing instruments in each vehicle to track when and where it is driven in order to impose new, more complex fees. Despite the theoretical benefits this would surely face even more opposition than proposals to raise fuel taxes.

On the other hand, some politicians want to finance transport improvements through general taxes instead of user fees. For example, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell recently proposed replacing the state’s 17.5-cent gas tax with an increase in the state’s sale tax from 5% to 5.8% dedicated to transportation expenditures. This is foolish. It would force residents who drive less than average to cross-subsidize their neighbors who drive more than average, and by reducing the marginal cost of driving will stimulate more vehicle travel which will increase traffic congestion, accidents and pollution emissions. The Governor’s proposal seems to reflect the illusion that a 0.8% tax on a broad range of consumer goods looks smaller than a 17.5¢ tax on a specific good.

Experts are too quick to dismiss fuel taxes. They are very cheap to collect (there is virtually no administrative cost to increasing existing fuel taxes), are no more regressive than most other taxes, and they support other planning objectives including congestion reduction, safety, energy conservation and emission reductions. Instead of dismissing them, governments should increase them to account for increasing fuel efficiency and inflation during the last few decades. The result would be revenue plus a more efficient transport system.

The potential benefits are significant. The U.S.’s high traffic fatality rates (the highest among peer countries) is largely explained by low fuel prices, which stimulate more per capita vehicle travel and therefore more traffic deaths. Financing transport improvements through fuel tax would save lives [PDF].

Communities should perform a comprehensive and systematic analysis of potential transport funding options. Earlier this month I presented a paper at the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting which did this. Local Funding Options for Public Transportation [PDF] evaluates eighteen potential funding options according to eight criteria including potential revenue, public acceptance and ease of implementation, predictability and sustainability, horizontal and vertical equity, travel impacts, and support for strategic development objectives. Although this paper focuses on public transit funding, most of the analysis is transferable to any transport project or service.

In general, direct user fees are the most efficient and equitable road funding option. With cost-based pricing, residents who reduce their annual vehicle travel, for example, by commuting by cycling for errands or commuting by public transit, saves money, an option that is not possible if roads are funded by general taxes. This suggests that fuel taxes, road tolls, VMT fees and per space parking levies are the best roadway financing option.

Of course, motorists don't want to pay more than they do now, but transportaton infrastructure is costly and there are no magic solutions. It is up to transportation professional - planners, engineers and economists - to tell the whole story: some funding options solve more problems than others. It is up to us to communicate this important concept to decision-makers and the general public during tranpsort funding debates.

Comments

Comments

Where's the rest of the story?

All of your suggestions are valid, but no one really looks at the expenditure side beyond railing against "bridges to nowhere."

Take the Tappan Zee Bridge, for example, In 1955, the existing bridge cost $80.8 million. Assuming 3% inflation since then, the present value would be $0.5 billion. Even considering the replacement will have two parallel structures, the expected cost of $3.1billion is three times the present value of the original. Why?

My county's public works department needs to replace a local bridge. It was originally expected to cost under $100,000 to design and $500,000 to build. Then the project was selected for federal aid. The cost ballooned to $500,000 to design and $1,500,000 to build. However, FHWA and the state DOT will cover 95% off the cost. That was six years ago. The bridge still hasn't been replaced.

I'd understand a bit more overhead to make sure federal funds are properly used, but not a three-fold increase!

So, why can't FHWA learn from municipal and state governments and improve the efficiency of their programs, so we can do more with what we already have? Why do federal aid projects cost so much more and take so much longer to design and build?

Why can't we do more with the revenue we alread have?

Blogger

Efficient Funding Can Reduce Infrastructure Costs

Yes, cost efficiency is certainly important - we all want to maximize the returns on our investments, including public investments. There are many examples of public infrastructure projects that cost more than predicted. It is important to understand and learn from such problems so we can be more accurate and efficient in the future.

A key point of my analysis is that some transportation funding options can reduce infrastructure costs and provide other economic savings and benefits. For example, fuel tax increases, congestion pricing and more efficient parking pricing encourage people to drive less and rely on alternative modes, which can reduce the need to expand roads and parking facilities, and reduce accidents, pollution emissions and sprawl-related costs, in addition to raising money. Other funding options, such as general taxes or fixed vehicle fees, provide no such savings.